Bible Pay

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rob Andrews

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 136
1
Thank you. Initially, the testnet sancs were enabled even when the entire VPS was off for extended periods of time; now when they temporarily drop connection, all of the sancs appear to be banned and none appear to gave recovered without intervention.

 sanc count
{
  "total": 6,
  "enabled": 0
}

Am I on the same chain as you, as all the sancs on this testnet chain appear banned?

So I was working on reviving my testnet nodes, and I agree, they all look banned.  The only reason I see 2 non-banned, is the local GUI on one of my banned sancs still has the old list. 

Anyway, I would like to notify everyone of this command.  I believe this is the command we need to unban a deterministic sanc without recreating it:

protx update_service proTxHash newIP:new_port masternodeblsprivKey


You can actually get all this info from the banned sanc itself (you can type masternode status, and get the IP, port, and original proTx hash, and you can get the blsPrivKey from the biblepay.conf on the sanc).  On a side note, if you want to do this from the controller, you can get the IP, port, blsPrivKey, and ProTxHash from the deterministic.conf.  So either should work to unban the node.  This command is also the one we use to Update an IP address for a non-banned sanc.

So, looking at the state of affairs, the reason the rest of the sancs are banned is because we failed to make the LLMQs correctly (with no minimum quorums).  The chain was in sync on 2 of my 3, so I believe we "would have" stayed in sync if we didnt lose the supermajority of our sancs.

Since MIP shut his down, and Oncoas is down, and mine need revived, I think we should take this opportunity to reset the testnet chain.
Primarily because I dont like the "666" trash that some joker transmitted, and of course, because we have 200,000 empty testnet blocks (therefore its harder to manage when we are away).

I think it would be best for us to slow the chain down to prod length blocks, and reset it and have us re-create our sancs at this point.

So in light of this please wait until the next version - it will need to be a mandatory upgrade (for testnet).

Thanks everyone for what you have already done!



2
Dear Rob,

Based on published data Ref: http://wiki.biblepay.org/Emission_Schedule
And the approx current output, I have calculated the approx BBP allocation based on current QT, can you please confirm? Thank you.

Planned emission   

                %                BBP
Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

Sanc          0.25         259,572.34
PoBHv2    0.25         259,572.34
SB(?)         0.10         103,828.93
GSC           0.40          415,315.74

GSC breakdown:
POG            0.475     197,274.97
POOM        0.475     197,274.97
HEALING    0.050      20,765.79

Hi Oncoapop,

You almost have it perfectly right. 

Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

This is right, since we have 1.7MM per day emissions in 2019, with a QT level of 60%, that means we are emitting 692,193 per day (roughly) right now, yes.

On the block distribution, we recently had this change:
https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=435.0

Changing it to :

20% - Charity and Governance (this is our 10% to orphan-charity + 10% to IT/PR/P2P/etc)
25% - GSC (this is for POG + Healing + Poom)
35% - Sanctuary budget  (This is currently 25% as you stated above but changes to 35% on our next mandatory upgrade)
20% - POBH/Security (This is for POBH Heat mining)


On the GSC breakdown:
Yes, 47.5% for POG, POOM=47.5%, and healing .05%, yes exactly.

So this means on a given day:

Total Gross emissions before QT = 1.7MM, minus 60% QT equals a gross daily emission of 692,193. 
Out of this (692,193 * 35%) 242,267 would go to the sanctuary in the future.

On the GSC, we actually will escrow 45% per block in advance - to cover the monthly and daily GSC budget - but pay out about 330K per day (total) for GSC - this is because the single monthly payment is only once but 330K is paid daily.  The 330K daily plus the monthly superblock amount equals the 45% per block escrow amount.

The 20% POBH would be a standard calculation (692,193 * .20 = 138,438) per day.







3
Production Proposals / Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« on: September 15, 2019, 01:31:18 pm »
So this idea is spearheaded by Apollon and I also have heard of this idea from TheSnat before.

The idea is to remove the port restriction on sactuaries, and allow the sanc to be hosted from any port number.

Technically, we know this will work because XAP and BlockLogic (BLTG) are doing it already.

(The port restriction is this:  Dash must run on port 9999 only and if a user hosts from other than 9999, the Masternode will be rejected from the network.  For BiblePay they must run on port 40000).

Dash put the port restriction in to be more corporate friendly for Network Admins - IE - they wanted network admins to know that if port 9999 is to be open, its specifically for Dash traffic.

Initially I was slightly against the idea, when I imagined we would have one sanc per user, I figured each of us could afford the $5 hosting fee per month.

However, as we evolved I have seen another side to this situation:  During downward price spirals some of our users who are cost concious would like to run more than one sanc on a hosted VPS.  From my perspective, I changed my mind to neutral when I experienced a very bad service level with one of my last sanc hosts (not vultr), and I had to hurry and switch to Apollon (thank God they were available at the time).  What Im alluding to is, if removing the port restriction would have given me for example a path to create more instances per vultr node for example, it might have been a life saver.  (I dont mean financially for me, I mean for the sake of the GSC contracts being voted on by my nodes).

In light of this I've become neutral.  I obviously want high performance per node.

Please provide any opinions on this idea, if this will be a terrible move for some reason.

As far as Apollons perspective, they are in business to make money.  I realize our partners need to be healthy and make a profit, and if we lose our partners, we lose our ability to host sancs.  Lets think of this from all angles.

Possible Positive reason:
If less BBP is spent on hosting less is liquidated on the exchange for hosting fees to be paid

Possible Negative reason:
Will we look weak and fragile if we allow this?





4
Does anyone understand this problem?

I believe we have determined your coin-age was the problem via PM but I cant quite remember  --   Has this been resolved now?

I think you just need more BBP in your wallet :(.


5
Thank you. Initially, the testnet sancs were enabled even when the entire VPS was off for extended periods of time; now when they temporarily drop connection, all of the sancs appear to be banned and none appear to gave recovered without intervention.

 sanc count
{
  "total": 6,
  "enabled": 0
}


Hi Oncoapop,

I see people have been replying to this thread; sorry, I was relying on an email notification and I didnt get one this time.

Anyhoo - Ill start with POSE.  The reason you were not banned for the first 99% of releases (Except, our last 3 releases!), is because, this branch, the dash .14 deterministic branch - has a major change compared to our Prod (.13) branch.  This branch POSE bans based on LLMQ quorum enforcement.

So the partial answer is - up til the last 3 releases - we did not have that spork enabled.  So your sancs were free to do anything they wanted (be off, anything).  The prod branch (.13) works a different way - those guys are banned based on Masternode Pings.

Moving on to the last two releases - at the point when we enabled LLMQs:  We now need 3 sanctuaries Keeping track of the network quorums (these are 60 minute heartbeats written into mined blocks).  They appear to be very strict.  But we also have had a network in tatters in testnet.  Im half tempted to change the block time back to 7 mins and have us start over!  Since we generated 200,000 empty blocks LOL.

Ill get back on and address some of these other things asap.  Im trying to finish some things up with BMS so we can merge that into a testnet thread also.


Ill restart my sancs and check the chain asap, also.


6
I switched off mine in the Vultr VPS. I made a snapshot so maybe I can take it back again.

Apart from that, what else do you need from me to test?

We need to have a reliable network of sanctuaries online to test LLMQs and Chainlocks. 





7
I have the following machines on testnet but all my sancs have been pose banned so i need to reactivate them but this back-to-school week is a bit busy for me.

http://oncoapop.sdf.org/biblepaytest/testnet_chainstate.shtml

Thanks guys!

Yeah, one of my 3 was pose banned too.  I have been deliberately waiting to see if it revives by itself.

As the Dash-Evo code hints at an automatic revival process; but - when I read about people who were POSE banned, they generally recreate their nodes.  But that doesnt make too much sense to me, because there is a strict control on not being able to re-use the same IP.

I have one well known working method to undo a POSE ban - but its like using a cannon - you can spend the output and recreate the sanc using upgradesanc - and that is allowed - because the network sees it as spent and undoes the lock on it first - and allows recreation.

Before I recreate my third sanc, let me do some more expirimentation.


8
Let me know when our sancs have upgraded, because I would like to set the spork to slow the testnet chain down to keep the testnet chain from generating thousands of empty one minute blocks (causing longer sync times in the future).

I believe Im the only 2 sancs left; MIP & Oncoapop are you guys still participating?

Jaap said he would, but we havent heard back from him after that.  I havent seen Togo here either despite coming back on the payroll.


9
Let me know when our sancs have upgraded, because I would like to set the spork to slow the testnet chain down to keep the testnet chain from generating thousands of empty one minute blocks (causing longer sync times in the future).


10
1.4.6.2 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet

- Merge in Prod changes up to 1.4.4.6
- Merge in Reindex fix (MIP)
- Add feature to slow mining of empty blocks in TestNet only
- Add feature to upload nested folder into BIPFS
- Add transparent background image for windows toolbar

11
Production Proposals / Re: Listing in MN hosting SatoshiSolutions
« on: August 28, 2019, 12:52:21 pm »
I requested a listing in SatoshiSolutions, and advanced a $250 fee myself, by selling 540000 BBP from my sanc.

Regarding the listing itself, it seems that we caught them in the middle of a merger/swap with other project, and to add up, in the middle of a migration to an improved infrastructure for MN hosting.

I told them I understand the circumstances but if they can provide a deadline for the listing, this will give more visibility to the community.

I have also spent a few hours contacting them to help compile the new wallet, but I will leave the proposal as it is to recover the advanced fee.

540000 BBP

Thank you very much

I like it and will vote yes.

When do they expect to make us go-live so we can create one?

Thanks!

12
Production Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange
« on: August 28, 2019, 11:34:27 am »
I have contacted Nick at FUBT and thanked him for his time he spent with us and spent evaluating BBP, and I mentioned that after evaluating this we have decided to wait and pass on this opportunity for now.

At this time, I am withdrawing my offer to fund this opportunity with my personal funds. 






13
Production Proposals / Re: Exchange Listing on Tokok.com
« on: August 28, 2019, 10:45:38 am »
I found that for instance listing fee on Stex exchange is 1 BTC for one pair with BTC, for pair with ETH is it 0.5 BTC as a fee.

When I take a look on Coingecko and Coinmarketcap, Stex exchange is looking fine, 6-7mil daily volume (normalized) and 1,4 mil visits per day.

This is a good example for price/quality comparism - price/quality.

Could you please reach out to Stex and get them to give us a firm quote and CC me ([email protected]) along with you?  We can then do due diligence on it and enter a proposal.  I seem to remember something, that made them unable to want to list us (or something) about 9 months ago, so please find out if that is a wives tail.

Regarding this proposal, Im getting a relatively more positive feeling from Paul at Tokok.  (First, Nick from FUBT said his Asian volume is really higher than Gecko as the algorithm is very hard on them.  I didnt ask this specific pointed question at Tokok yet).  But Paul tends to think without misleading us that this Asian move would be our biggest trading arena.

Im taking into consideration where we are and where we are going, with solid deals.  You have to realize, unless its a deal confirmed between our parties and what coin-type we have - its Not a deal at all.



14
Production Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange
« on: August 26, 2019, 09:00:26 am »
Coingecko takes in consideration ration between 24hours volume and number of site visits (they take it from SimilarWeb). They count this ration for 10 bitwise exchanges (Binance, Bitfinex, Kraken, Bitstamp, Coinbase, Bitflyer, Gemini, itBit, Bittrex, Poloniex) from this they make median and median using as a benchmark. Based on this benchmark they normalize volumes down or up for rest exchanges (in detail here https://blog.coingecko.com/trust-score/ ). I see this as a good weapon against fake volumes. From our two exchanges TOKOK is going to look much more better choice.

Ok, thats a much better explanation for their normalizing system than I thought they were doing (I thought they were monitoring some type of trading filters and guessing if it was bot activity :), ok good to know.

Yes, Tokok looks a lot better again, now we need to know is there anything negative about Tokok.

1 mil is not shabby, and it might be bigger if the similarweb is too strict on the whale activity at tokok. (Im remaining positive that they are not falsifying all the volume).



15
Production Proposals / Re: Exchange Listing on Tokok.com
« on: August 26, 2019, 08:41:00 am »
I updated the gross deal in the OP post to include the Tokok airdrop campaign.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 136